34 Petition FINAL

IN THE COURT OF Ld.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ALWAR, RAJASTHAN
NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
CORPORATE ALLIANCES …. PETITIONER
VERSUS
MINDSCAPE ONE MARKETING PVT. LTD …. RESPONDENT
INDEX
S. PARTICULARS PAGE
No. NO.
1. INDEX
2. NOTICE OF MOTION
3. URGENT APPLICATION
4. COURT FEE
5. MEMO OF PARTIES
6. PETITION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996 AGAINST THE ABITRAL
AWARD DATED MARCH 18, 2017
PASSED BY THE LD. SOLE
ARBITRATOR AT TIJARA, ALWAR,
RAJASTHAN IN THE MATTER OF
ARBITRATION BETWEEN MINDSCAPE
ONE MARKETING PVT LTD v.
CORPORATE ALLIANCES.
7. AFFIDAVIT UNDER SECTION 65B OF
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
PETITIONER
THROUGH
(DEBESH PANDA & AMRITA PANDA)

Upasana Apartments, F-6, 6th Floor,
1 Hailey Road, New Delhi – 110 001
PLACE:
DATED: .2017
IN THE COURT OF Ld. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
ALWAR, RAJASTHAN
NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Sir,
The accompanying petition is being filed on behalf of the

Petitioner and is likely to be listed on ________________, or
any date, thereafter. Please take notice accordingly.
PETITIONER
THROUGH

PLACE:
DATED: .2017
ALWAR, RAJASTHAN
NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Registrar
District and Sessions Court, Alwar, Rajasthan
Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying petition as urgent in

accordance with the rules and orders of the Hon’ble
District and Sessions Court. The grounds of urgency are as
prayed for.
PETITIONER
THROUGH

PLACE:
DATED: .2017
ALWAR, RAJASTHAN
NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
COURT FEE
PETITIONER
THROUGH

PLACE:
DATED: .2017
ALWAR, RAJASTHAN
NO. OF 2017
MEMO OF PARTIES
CORPORATE ALLIANCES
A Partnership Firm registered with the Registrar of
Firms, Through its Authorised Representative Mr.
M.P.S. Gill,
Having its registered office at 204, Vikram Towers,
Rajinder Place, New Delhi – 110 008
….
Petitioner
VERSUS
MINDSCAPE ONE MARKETING PVT LTD.

A Company registered under the Companies Act,
1956,
Through its Authorised Representative
Having its registered office at L-37, Income Tax
Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur – 302 018, Rajasthan
.... Respondent
PETITIONER
THROUGH

PLACE:
DATED: .2017
ALWAR, RAJASTHAN
NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
PETITION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION
AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AGAINST THE
ARBITRAL AWARD DATED MARCH 18, 2017 PASSED
BY THE LD. SOLE ARBITRATOR AT TIJARA, ALWAR,
RAJASTHAN IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION
BETWEEN MINDSCAPE ONE MARKETING PVT LTD VS.
CORPORATE ALLIANCES
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That Petitioner is a Partnership Firm registered with the
Registrar of Firms, Delhi, having its registered office at
204, Vikram Towers, Rajinder Place, New Delhi – 110 008
and is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing
and packaging of bread and other bakery items. The

present petition is being preferred by Mr. M.P.S Gill,
Partner and the Authorized Representative of the firm.
2. That Respondent is a company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office at L-37, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road,
Jaipur – 302 018, Rajasthan. It is engaged inter alia in the
business of distribution, sale and marketing of bread.
3. That the Impugned Arbitral Award was passed by the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator, Mr. A.K. Raghava, ADJ (Retd.) on March 18,
2017 at Tijara, Alwar in the matter of arbitration between
Mindscape One Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Corporate Alliances.
Copy of the Award was received by the Petitioner on
March 24, 2017. True Copy of the Arbitral Award dated
March 18, 2017 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator at Tijara,
Alwar, received on March 24, 2017 is enclosed herewith
and marked as Annexure – P/1.
4. That the Ld. Sole Arbitrator was pleased to grant the
following reliefs while passing the Impugned Arbitral
Award dated March 18, 2017, received by the Petitioner
on March 24, 2017 (hereinafter, “Impugned Award”):
A. Petitioner was directed to keep Respondent’s oven
with itself and the security deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five lacs only) given by Petitioner to
Respondent for the oven was to be set off against the
cost of the oven.

B. Petitioner was perpetually restrained from
manufacturing bread/bakery items either for its own
or for any other business entity at the existing plaint
set up under the Agreement with the Respondent or
using the Plant for manufacturing and packaging of
breads/bakery items of a different entity, either
directly or indirectly through its directors/promoters
and/or their spouses, children and/or any other
family members, for a period of 3 years from the
date of termination of the agreement, i.e. 1 st
December, 2015. Petitioner was directed to
discontinue the said activities at the plant within a
period of 30 days form the announcement of the
award.
C. Petitioner was directed to pay Respondent damages
@ Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per day
for the period commencing from 1st December 2015
till the actual date of discontinuation of
manufacturing of bread at the said plant.
D. Respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.
19,94,668/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Ninety Four
Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Eight only) to the
Petitioner towards full and final settlement of dues on
account of sale/purchase of bread, raw material,
packaging material and supply of crates.

E. Respondent was directed not to refund Rs.
25,00,000/- to the Petitioner, paid to Respondent
towards consultancy charges for services rendered
by it in connection with setting up the bread plant.
F. Petitioner was held to be not entitled to damages
claimed by on account of financial loss and
harassment caused to it, to the tune of Rs.
3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only).
G. Petitioner was directed to reimburse Respondent an
amount of Rs. 55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand
only) as arbitration fees and expenses incurred by
Respondent.
H. Parties were required to make the aforesaid
payments within a period of 30 days from the
announcement of the award.
5. That by way of the present petition, Petitioner prays for
the following reliefs, inter alia:
A. As interim relief, stay the effect and operation of the
final Impugned Arbitral Award dated March 18, 2017
passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator at Tijara, Alwar in
the matter of arbitration between the parties herein
pending final disposal of this petition.
B. As final relief, set aside the final Impugned Arbitral
Award dated March 18, 2017 passed by the Ld. Sole

Arbitrator at Tijara, Alwar in the matter of arbitration
between the parties herein.
6. That the present matter pertains to Respondent’s efforts
in unjustly setting off a security deposit of Rs. 25 lacs paid
by the Petitioner against Respondent’s oven and a
perpetual injunction restraining Petitioner from using the
techniques and machinery adopted in the course of
manufacturing bread and bakery items under the
Agreement entered into by the parties. Respondent also
attempted to restrain Petitioner from undertaking
manufacturing of bread and other bakery items, their
production and distribution etc on any plant for the period
of 5 years from the date of termination of the Agreement.
7. That moreover, Respondent in its statement of claim
before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator intentionally suppressed the
mutual termination of the Agreement dated May 27, 2013
entered into by the parties, which was effected due to
Respondent’s new and unjustifiable financial projections,
just a year after the operation of the plant by the
Petitioner. The claims made by Respondent before the Ld.
Arbitrator were bad in law being directly contrary to one,
the terms of the Agreement as varied by the meeting
effecting mutual termination of the Agreement and two,
well established legal principles enshrined under Section
27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

8. That the Ld. Arbitrator was pleased to pass the Arbitral
Award by relying upon unproved and disputed documents,
having given Petitioner no opportunity to examine
Respondent’s witnesses. The Impugned Award was further
passed without considering material documents which
prima facie render the findings of the award
unsustainable. The Impugned Award is directly contrary to
the terms of the Agreement, fails to recognize
Respondent’s consent in materially altering the terms of
the Agreement and is in direct contravention of statutory
law as recognized by the courts of the country.
9. That in the month of February 2013, Petitioner was
approached by Respondent for the manufacture and
packaging of bread and other bakery items in Delhi NCR.
Respondent was desirous of creating a new market for
breads and wanted to appoint a manufacturer having
sufficient expertise, infrastructure and resources to set-up,
operate and manage manufacturing plants/units for the
manufacture and packaging of bread.
10. That pursuant to the above, Petitioner and Respondent
entered into a Manufacturing Agreement dated May 27,
2013 [hereinafter, “Agreement”] in pursuance of which,
Petitioner purchased a plot bearing no. 379, Bani
Industrial Area, Sonepat for setting up a plant having the
capacity to manufacture and produce 90 (ninety) bags of

bread in a single shift. In hindsight, at the time of the
execution of the Agreement, Respondent and its officials
made several misleading and deceptive promises
regarding the return on investment in the said project in
order to allure Petitioner. On the basis of such
representations and financial projections, Petitioner was
induced to make a huge investment of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Crores only) approximately in purchasing the
said plot and plant.
11. That the said purchase was made independently by
Petitioner without the cooperation of Respondent but
however, to the latter’s satisfaction in accordance with
the terms of the Agreement. Such representations and
projections, as it now transpires, were completely false,
misleading and were made with the deliberate dishonest
intention to cheat and defraud Petitioner. Moreover,
Petitioner was driven to incur an expenditure of Rs.
25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) as consultancy
fees to Respondent.
True copy of Manufacturing Agreement dated May 27,
2013 entered into between Petitioner and Respondent is
herewith enclosed and marked as Annexure – P/2.
12. That despite Petitioner possessing the requisite
equipment and machinery to manufacture bread in

accordance with Article 6 of the Agreement, it reluctantly
agreed to employ Respondent’s baking oven [hereinafter,
“Oven”] by incurring a security deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only), primarily at the relentless
insistence of Respondent.
13. That the plant was set up within nine months from the
date of the Agreement and operations commenced on or
about May 08, 2014. This was done without the co-
operation and/or information provided by Respondent with
respect to management advice, services, specific
knowledge, technical and non-technical knowledge as
regards bakery, information, plot and layout, activities,
specification of equipments and standards, design
specifications of the machine, information of the seller
and specification with regard to the purchasing of
equipments. Petitioner unilaterally set up the plant but to
the satisfaction of Respondent by adhering to the
standards laid down in the Agreement. However, to
Petitioner’s utter shock and surprise, Respondent after a
year unilaterally came up with new financial projections
which drastically reduced supply and began to pressurize
Petitioner into accepting the same. These projections/rate
enhancements had the ability to severely affect
Petitioner’s financial stability, investment and the overall

scheme of the Agreement, which was intimated to
Respondent vide e-mail dated June 17, 2015.
True copy of Petitioner’s e-mail dated June 17, 2015 is
14. That having received no satisfactory response from
Respondent, and in an attempt to reach an amicable
consensus, Petitioner vide e-mail dated October 20, 2015
intimated Respondent that it was willing to assure a
minimum production of 70 bags/day subject to
Respondent guaranteeing the same, including a monthly
review of rates. In spite of these reasonable conditions,
which would have helped counter the increased per unit
cost in view of reduced supply, Respondent vide e-mail
dated October 21, 2015 refused to re-consider and alter
its financial projections. This drastically affected
Petitioner’s financial stability.
True copy of Petitioner’s e-mail dated October 20, 2015
and Respondent’s e-mail dated October 21, 2015 is
herewith enclosed and marked as Annexure – P/4
(Colly).
15. That in order to save business relations and amicably
resolve the dispute at hand, a meeting was held on
November 02, 2015 (hereinafter, “Minutes of Meeting”)
between the officials of parties wherein it was inter alia
mutually decided and agreed that,

“…1. Letter of termination will be given by be given
by CA to MOM w.e.f. 20th of Nov’15 with +/- 5 days.
The date has been mutually agreed between CA and
MOM. Letter to be given latest by 04.11.2015. MOM
will convey its acceptance within one week of receipt
of letter from CA.
2. All poly stocks and improvers, if any remaining
balance with CA will be handed over to HG after last
date of production and invoice for the same will be
raised by CA to HG.
3. Poly and improver, if any, required before last day
of production by CA will be sold from HG.
4. All accounts between CA and HG & CA & MOM till
the date of last transaction will be settled within 30
days of submission of invoices by each other.
5. MOM will hold with itself last 7 days, immediately
before the last date of production, payment for bread
purchase and the same will be released on full and
final settlement of accounts.
6. Security deposit by CA to MOM against Oven will be
refunded to CA before physically shifting of Oven
which will be done within 20 days immediately after
last date of production.

7. All pending C-Forms will be given to MOM/HG to by
CA immediately on receipt from sales tax department.
CA will try to expedite this.”
True copy of Minutes of Meeting dated November 02, 2015
is herewith enclosed and marked as Annexure – P/5.
16. That this meeting had the effect of materially altering the
substantive terms of the Agreement, including the rights
and obligations of each party accruing from the
Agreement. The parties had willingly undertaken new
obligations, which were final and binding. The Agreement
therefore stood altered to the extent specified by the
minutes of the meeting. Pertinently, Respondent
intentionally withheld these Minutes of Meeting before the
Ld. Arbitrator despite having signed and acknowledged
the same through its authorized representatives.
17. That pursuant thereto, Petitioner vide e-mail dated
November 03, 2015 terminated the Agreement, to which
Respondent reverted vide e-mail dated November 10,
2015 stating that “…it acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of termination and also convey our accepted
towards termination of Agreement...”. It further went on
to state that “…it was decided in our meeting that you will
continue to manufacture till 20.11.15 (+/- 5 days). Hence,
the exact date of discontinuation of manufacturing will be

decided mutually and communicated to each other
accordingly. The settlement of accounts will also be made
in terms of the Agreement read with the minutes of
meeting held on 2.11.2015…”. It was therefore evident
that Respondent, by its very conduct accepted the terms
of the Minutes of the Meeting as forming part and parcel
of the Agreement and also the consequential variation of
the Agreement to the extent of its inconsistency with the
terms of the Minutes of the Meeting.
True copy of Petitioner’s e-mail dated November 03, 2015
and Respondent’s e-mail dated November 10, 2015 is
(Colly).
18. That pursuant to such mutual termination of the
Agreement, the parties agreed to November 30, 2015
being the last date of production, evident from Petitioner’s
similar dated email. This implied that Respondent was
obligated to physically shift and remove its Oven from
Petitioner’s premises within 20 days from November 30,
2015 i.e., latest by December 20, 2015. This further
implied that Respondent was obligated to first, refund
Petitioner’s security deposit prior to the date of such
removal and second, clear all of Petitioner’s outstanding
dues and invoices before November 30, 2015, which at

the time amounted to 24,33,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four
Lacs Thirty Three Thousand only).
True copy of Petitioner’s e-mail dated November 30, 2015
19. That thereafter, Petitioner on several occasions intimated
Respondent to initiate and complete the physical removal
of the Oven from its premises, evident from its e-mails
dated December 07, 2015, December 16, 2015 and
December 18, 2015, which ultimately fell on deaf ears.
Considering the financial impact of each day’s non-
removal, Petitioner was compelled to deploy 20 of its
workers to physically remove the Oven with utmost
precaution and care. Surprisingly, it was only post
December 18, 2015 that Respondent sent a meager three
workers to undertake the removal process. In fact, the
approach adopted by the workers was extremely
lackadaisical to the extent that they took an off from work
on December 24, 2015 and December 26, 2015 without
prior intimation to the Petitioner. This is in addition to the
public holiday on December 25, 2015, which was
conveyed to the Respondent, vide e-mail dated December
26, 2015.
True copy of Petitioner’s e-mails dated December 07,
2015, December 16, 2015, December 18, 2015 and

December 26, 2015 is herewith enclosed and marked as
Annexure – P/8 (Colly).
20. That Petitioner thereafter again intimated Respondent
vide e-mail dated December 28, 2015 that in view of its
non-cooperation in the removal process, Petitioner was
compelled to undertake the same, which took
approximately 20 days.
True copy of Petitioner’s e-mail dated December 28, 2015
21. That with no response forthcoming from the Respondent,
Petitioner once again vide e-mail dated December 31,
2015 requested it to collect the Oven from its factory
premises and refund the security deposit. It is pertinent to
note that Respondent did not revert to any
correspondence made by Petitioner in the month of
November (end) – December 2015. In fact, any
correspondence alleged to have been made by
Respondent, for instance the alleged mail of December
03, 2015 is nothing but an attempt to beat around the
bush and slyly dishonour its obligations arising out of the
terms of the Minutes of the Meeting. In fact, the said e-
mail by Respondent is contrary to the e-mails’ sent by
Petitioner to Respondent prior to and on December 7,
2015 intimating the latter’s responsibility to swiftly and
timely remove the Oven.

True copy of Petitioner’s e-mail dated December 31, 2015
and Respondent’s e-mail dated December 03, 2015 is
(Colly).
22. That abruptly and out of the blue on December 31, 2015
Respondent sent an e-mail to the Petitioner intimating
alleged unprofessional removal of the Oven without prior
intimation to Respondent, restraining Respondent’s team
from carrying out the removal process, enforcing its right
of three months for removal as provided for under the
Agreement (which was negated by the newly agreed
timeline of 20 days in the Minutes of the Meeting) and
further claimed damages that it would set off against the
security amount deposited by Petitioner. So much so that
Respondent, once again vide letter-dated January 19,
2016 threatened to set off the alleged damages to the
Oven against the security amount in its possession.
True copy of Respondent’s e-mail dated December 31,
2015 and January 19, 2016 is herewith enclosed and
marked as Annexure – P/11 (Colly).
23. That resultantly, Petitioner was constrained to invoke the
arbitration clause of the Agreement vide letter dated
March 02, 2016 and requested Respondent to appoint an
arbitrator for settling the disputes arising out of the

Agreement read with the terms of the Minutes of the
Meeting.
True copy of Petitioner’s letter dated March 02, 2016
invoking the arbitration clause of the Agreement is
24. That Respondent reverted vide letter dated March 10,
2016 confirming the appointment of Mr. A.K. Raghava, ADJ
(Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator in the matter of arbitration
between the parties herein, in accordance with Article 17
of the Agreement. On the same day, Petitioner, without
prejudice to its rights, issued a letter calling upon
Respondent to make payment in good faith in respect of
invoices due by it to Petitioner.
True copy of Respondent and Petitioner’s letters dated
March 10, 2016 is herewith enclosed and marked as
25. That on April 2, 2016 Petitioner received a letter from the
Ld. Sole Arbitrator intimating his reference in the matter
and directed Respondent to file its Statement of Claim.
That in-between, Respondent filed an application bearing
no. Civil Application No. 75 / 2016 under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon’ble
District and Session Judge, Alwar (Rajasthan) praying for a
temporary injunction under Order 39 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 restraining Petitioner, his legal heirs,

children or any other member of the family from using the
techniques, machinery and oven of Respondent in
manufacturing, producing and distributing bread and
other bakery items under their own or Respondent’s mark.
The Hon’ble Court was however, pleased to dismiss
Respondent’s application vide order dated June 03, 2016.
True typed copy of order dated June 03, 2016 passed by
the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge in Civil Application
No. 75 / 2016 is herewith enclosed and marked as
Annexure – P/14.
26. That Respondent filed its Statement of Claim on April 26,
2016, which came to be received by the Petitioner on May
14, 2016. Subsequently, Petitioner filed its Written
Statement and Counterclaim before the Ld. Arbitrator on
June 01, 2016 to which, the Respondent filed its Rejoinder
on August 19, 2016 before the Ld. Arbitrator, which was
received by the Petitioner on the same day.
True copy of Respondent’s Statement of Claim filed before
the Ld. Arbitrator on 26.04.2016, Petitioner’s Written
Statement and Counterclaim filed before the Ld. Arbitrator
on 01.06.2016 and Respondent’s Rejoinder filed before
the Ld. Arbitrator on 19.09.2016 is herewith enclosed and
marked as Annexure – P/15 (Colly).
27. That on August 19, 2016 Petitioner filed an application
before the Ld. Arbitrator for a change in venue of the

arbitration to New Delhi, which would have been
convenient for both the parties and the Ld. Arbitrator on
account of all residing within Delhi NCR. Respondent
objected to the same without any basis and with the sole
intent to harass Petitioner by compelling it to travel an
unnecessary distance in order to participate in the
hearing. The said application came to be arbitrarily
dismissed by the Ld. Arbitrator without considering the
legal distinction between ‘venue’ and ‘seat’ of arbitration.
In fact, it was only when Petitioner received a copy of the
minutes of the meeting of the arbitral proceedings along
with the Impugned Award did it find that the Ld. Arbitrator
has incorrectly applied the law held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon
GMBH & Anr., (2014) 5 SCC 1 while summarily dismissing
the application.
28. That moreover, five months after having entered
reference in the matter, it was noticed by Petitioner that
the Ld. Arbitrator had failed to issue its notice of
disclosure of neutrality, independence and impartiality in
accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. Resultantly, Petitioner was compelled to issue a
letter dated September 05, 2016 to the Ld. Arbitrator
requesting him to comply with the said statutory
requirement. A reminder was thereafter again sent on

September 16, 2016 to the Ld. Arbitrator reiterating the
above request.
True copy of Petitioner’s letters dated September 05, 2016
and September 16, 2016 issued to the Ld. Arbitrator and
Petitioner's application for change of venue dated
19.8.2016 and Respondent's objection to change in venue
dated 06.09.2016 is herewith enclosed and marked as
29. That it was only on September 17, 2016 that Petitioner
received the Ld. Arbitrator’s disclosure statement, which
was styled more as a favour than compliance with a
statutory mandate. Interestingly, the letter read, “…
Claimant was informed that Arbitrator has received a
letter from the counsel of Respondent on 16-09-2016
indicating their inability to participate in arbitral
proceedings unless disclosure of independence is made
by arbitrator. Though such disclosure is required only
when arbitrator has any relationship with or interest in
any of the parties or in relation to the subject matter in
dispute, it is desirable to make disclosure on the request
of respondent...”. Pertinently, even the disclosure
statement clearly revealed that the Ld. Arbitrator had no
prior experience in conducting any arbitration.

True copy of letter dated September 17, 2016 received by
the Ld. Arbitrator is herewith enclosed and marked as
Annexure – P/17.
30. That on December 17, 2016 Petitioner through counsel
requested the Ld. Arbitrator to frame the procedure for
conducting the arbitration, in accordance with Section 19
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the
absence of the Arbitration Agreement failing to provide so.
Petitioner’s request having been rejected at the hearing
on December 17, 2016, Petitioner suggested that the Ld.
Arbitrator be pleased to frame issues in the matter and
permit parties to file their respective evidence by way of
an Affidavit. Shockingly, the Ld. Arbitrator was pleased to
dismiss the request for framing of issues and filing of
evidence. Only after much persuasion on part of the
Petitioner was the Ld. Arbitrator pleased to grant only a
weeks’ time to file the evidence. This was strongly
objected to by the Petitioner on grounds that a minimum
of four weeks would be required, however, to no avail. The
Ld. Arbitrator relentlessly agreed to grant Petitioner extra
time as and when requested, but did not include the same
as part of the minutes of the arbitral proceedings.
31. That on January 30, 2017 Petitioner attempted to file a
copy of its Evidence by way of an Affidavit before the Ld.
Arbitrator at his residence. However, while doing so

Petitioner Company’s Account Manager, Mr. Pankaj Jha,
who had visited the Ld. Arbitrator’s residence at 1-A, Civil
Lines, Gurgaon – 122 001 was verbally abused and
assaulted by the Ld. Arbitrator, before throwing him off his
residential property. Petitioner immediately communicated
the disgraceful incident to the Ld. Arbitrator vide letter
dated February 02, 2017 whereby additionally, the delay
in filing the affidavit was also reiterated as mentioned in
the application for condonation of delay attached along
with the affidavit of evidence.
True copy of Petitioner's Evidence by way of Affidavit
dated January 27, 2017 and letter dated February 02,
2017 addressed to the Ld. Arbitrator is herewith enclosed
and marked as Annexure – P/18 (Colly).
32. That moreover, Petitioner therein also conveyed that the
Ld. Arbitrator’s letter dated January 28, 2017, which was
actually sent by post on January 30, 2017 and received by
the Petitioner on February 01, 2017 failed to record any
detail pertaining to the aforementioned disgraceful
incident that took place at his residence.
True copy of the Ld. Arbitrator’s letter dated January 28,
2017 along with postal receipt is herewith enclosed and
marked as Annexure – P/19.

33. That pertinently, throughout the course of the
proceedings, not once did the Ld. Arbitrator fix a date for
hearing oral evidence of the parties in respect of the
documents and written evidence filed. As a result, no
opportunity was ever given to the Petitioner to examine
Respondent’s documents and witnesses.
True copy of order sheets dated June 24, 2016, October
15, 2016, December 01, 2016, February 06, 2017 and
February 18, 2017 is herewith enclosed and marked as
34. That perturbed by the conduct of the Ld. Arbitrator,
Petitioner was constrained to file written arguments by
way of abundant caution on February 25, 2017 before the
Ld. Arbitrator by way of service by hand at his residence.
However, the Ld. Arbitrator refused to acknowledge the
same in writing and thereby, unprofessionally recorded
receipt of the same only on March 10, 2017 as part of the
minutes of the proceedings.
True copy of the Petitioner’s written arguments dated
February 25, 2017 is herewith enclosed and marked as
Annexure – P/21.
35. That it is pertinent to note that Petitioner never received
the minutes of the arbitral proceedings from the Ld.
Arbitrator, but only a summary of its orders.

36. That on March 18, 2017 the Ld. Arbitrator was pleased to
pass the final Impugned Arbitral Award, which has been
challenged by the Petitioner herein on inter alia the
following grounds, however before which, it would be
relevant to mention that on June 09, 2017 Petitioner learnt
via a news report about the registration of an F.I.R. against
the Ld. Arbitrator at Civil Lines P.S. Gurugram under
Section 332/353//307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read
with Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 for having
opened fire at workers fixing a power source near his
home, for which he has been sent to judicial custody. True
copy of the news report dated 09.06.2017 is enclosed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-21.

GROUNDS
I. FOR THAT, the present matter deserves interference by
this Hon’ble Court on account of the unbalanced and
irrational conduct of the Ld. Arbitrator in conducting the
arbitration proceedings in haste and instilling the
apprehension of danger in the Petitioner, as is evident by
the Petitioner’s letter dated February 02, 2017 and
amplified by the F.I.R. registered against the Ld. Arbitrator
as reported in the news report dated June 09, 2017;
II. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as the Ld. Arbitrator failed to provide Petitioner
a reasonable opportunity to disprove Respondent’s claim
by examining its documents, evidence and witnesses, as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sohan Lal
Gupta (Dead) thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Smt. Asha Devi Gupta &
Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 492;
III. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as the Ld. Arbitrator cannot disregard the basic
rules of evidence that are founded on the fundamental
principles of justice and public policy, as held by the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Jagmohan Singh Gujral v.
Satish Ashok Sabnis & Anr., 2004 (1) ARBLR 212 (Bom);
IV. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as the Ld. Arbitrator failed to consider that

documents per se merely assert but do not prove a claim
unless they are admitted by the party against whom they
are tendered, for which they must be subject to oral
evidence and examination, as held by the Hon’ble High
Court of Calcutta in State of West Bengal & Ors. v.
Chittadas Roy, (1998) 2 CalLT 420 (HC);
V. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch the Ld. Arbitrator passed the award by relying
upon unproved and disputed documents as evidence and
thereby, acted contrary to the principles of natural justice,
as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in The Board
of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai v. Afcons Infrastructure
Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 868 of 2012;
VI. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch the blatant disregard of the fundamental rules
of evidence by the Ld. Arbitrator is a patent illegality that
goes to the root of the matter, which is a independent
ground for setting aside an arbitral award as held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in McDermott
International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC
181;
VII. FOR THAT, the Ld. Arbitrator erred in law in failing to
consider that the only mode by which a contract can be
amended / substituted is by the same process by which it
was created, i.e. mutual agreement, as held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v.
Kishorilal Gupta & Bros., AIR 1959 SC 1362;
VIII. FOR THAT, the Ld. Arbitrator failed to consider that parties
agreed to a mutual settlement of all their disputes by
accord and satisfaction as per the arrangement
formulated in the meeting held on November 02, 2015, as
held by the Hon’ble Privy Council in Payana Reena
Saminathan v. Pana Lana Palaniappa, 18 CWN 617;
IX. FOR THAT, alternatively, the Ld. Arbitrator failed to
consider that the terms of the Minutes of Meeting dated
November 02, 2015 became part of the original
agreement by varying it to the extent specified, and the
original Agreement stood superseded to the extent of its
inconsistency with the Minutes of Meeting, as held by the
Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Juggilal Kamlapat v. N.V.
Internationale Crediet-En-Handels Vereeninging
‘Rotterdam’, AIR 1955 Cal 65, approved by the Hon’ble
High Court of Allahabad in National Highways Authority of
India v. Shiva Tractors, 2016 (1) ARBLR 338 (All);
X. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as the Ld. Arbitrator prima facie failed to
consider material documents while passing the Impugned
Award, which throw abundant light on the controversy,
such as inter alia the Minutes of Meeting dated
02.11.2015, Petitioner’s letter dated 17.06.2015, letters

dated 03.11.2015, 10.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and
26.12.2015, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in K.P. Poulose v. State of Kerela & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC
236;
XI. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as the Ld. Arbitrator failed to consider that
Respondent by its very conduct and correspondence
accepted the validity and legitimacy of the Minutes of
Meeting and its subsequent incorporation as part of the
original Agreement by varying it to the extent specified in
the minutes, as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
BWL Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr., 2007
(4) ARBLR 398 (Delhi);
XII. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as the parties were at ad-idem while agreeing to
the terms of the Minutes of the Meeting dated November
02, 2015 and Respondent is precluded from having
recourse to the terms of the original Agreement to the
extent they are inconsistent with the minutes;
XIII. FOR THAT, in terms of the judgement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Cochin Shipyard Ltd. v. Apeejay
Shipping Ltd., (2015) 15 SCC 522 the Impugned Award is
unsustainable in law inasmuch it was passed by the Ld.
Arbitrator upon reaching an inconsistent conclusion on his

own finding, being “…what the Claimant has agreed to is
only the effective date of termination…”;
XIV. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is directly contrary to the
judgment of the Hon’ble District and Session Judge, Alwar
(Rajasthan) in Civil Application No. 75/2016 passed while
considering an application filed by the Respondent under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on
the same set of facts;
XV. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as Respondent never discharged the burden of
disproving Article 12 of the Agreement as constituting
restraint of trade under Section 27 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. The Century Spinning and
Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1098;
XVI. FOR THAT, the burden of proof thrust upon Respondent in
respect of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
could not have been discharged suo motu by the Ld.
Arbitrator;
XVII. FOR THAT, the Ld. Arbitrator has failed to consider that
Petitioner was engaged in the manufacturing of bread and
other bakery items prior to entering into an Agreement
with Respondent, and would continue to enter into
agreements with third parties, as acknowledged by Article
12.3 of the Agreement;

XVIII. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as the Ld. Arbitrator failed to consider that it
was incumbent upon it to only consider if the Agreement
was or not in restraint of trade under Section 27 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 and without going into the
reasonability of such restraint, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Coca Cola Co. & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 545;
XIX. FOR THAT, even so, the Impugned Award is unsustainable
in law inasmuch as the Ld. Arbitrator failed to consider
that pursuant to the mutual termination of the Agreement
upon Respondent’s unwillingness to comply with
contractual terms, the restraint of trade imposed under
Article 12.4 of the Agreement was beyond the scope of
reasonability, as held by this Hon’ble Court in Hukmi
Chand v. Jaipur Ice & Oil Mills Co. & Ors., AIR 1980 Raj
155;
XX. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as the restraint of trade imposed under Article
12.4 of the Agreement is without any reasonable basis
inasmuch as it completely prevents Petitioner from
continuing a profitable business and is also not covered by
the Exception to Article 27 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872;
XXI. FOR THAT, it was incumbent upon the Ld. Arbitrator to file
his statement disclosing independence and neutrality in
the matter immediately upon entering reference in the
proceedings as mandated by the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996;
XXII. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award deserves to be set aside
for reason that the Ld. Arbitrator filed his statement of
disclosure of independence and neutrality only upon the
insistence of the Petitioner and not voluntarily, which
indicates apparent bias on his part;
XXIII. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is contrary to substantive
provisions of Indian law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in D.D.A. v. R.S. Sharma & Co., (2008) 13
SCC 80;
XXIV. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is unsustainable in law
inasmuch as the Ld. Arbitrator has disregarded and gone
beyond the express law of contract, as held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Centrotrade Minerals &
Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 245;
XXV. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is against the
fundamental policy of Indian Law, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development
Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49;
GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

I. FOR THAT, the Petitioner has an excellent prima facie case
and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
Petitioner and against Respondent;
II. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is prima facie illegal and
arbitrary;
III. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award has the effect of severely
hampering the business of the Petitioner without any legal
basis;
IV. FOR THAT, the Ld. Arbitrator has failed to consider
material documents placed by the Petitioner which render
the findings of the Impugned Award arbitrary;
V. FOR THAT, the Ld. Arbitrator has reached an inconsistent
solution on his own findings and thereby caused grave
prejudice to the Petitioner;
VI. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award has been passed on the
basis of unproved and disputed documents, which have
never been subjected to oral evidence and examination;
VII. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award is against the very
fundamentals of Indian policy and law;
VIII. FOR THAT, the Impugned Award deserves to be stayed
pending final disposal of this petition, as held by the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Atlanta Limited v.
Executive Engineer, Arbitration Petition No. 761 of 2014:
(2014) SCCOnline Bom 772 and HRIM Finance and

Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Globe Capital Market Ltd., Arbitration
Petitioner (L) No. 89 of 2016;
INTERIM PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above,
Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
A. Stay the effect and operation of the final Impugned
Arbitral Award dated March 18, 2017 passed by the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator at Tijara in the matter of arbitration
between the parties herein pending final disposal of the
present petition; and
B. Pass any such further order or direction that this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above,
Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
A. Set aside the Arbitral Award dated March 18, 2017 passed
by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator at Tijara, Alwar in the matter of

arbitration between Mindscape One Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.
Corporate Alliances; and
B. Pass any such further order or direction that this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
PETITIONER
THROUGH

PLACE:
DATED: .2017
ALWAR, RAJASTHAN
NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
CORPORATE ALLIANCES … PETITIONER
VERSUS
MINDSCAPE ONE MARKETING PVT. LTD … RESPONDENT
AFFIDVIT
I, Manvinder Pal Singh Gill, S/o B. S. Gill aged about 49
years, R/o M-203, GHN, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi – 110
087, presently working as Partner of M/s Corporate
Alliances having its registered office at 204, Vikram
Towers, Rajinder Place, New Delhi – 110 008, the
Petitioner Firm herein, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state as under:
1.That I am a Partner and authorised representative of the
Petitioner Firm and am fully conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case and as such, competent and
duly authorised to swear and affirm this affidavit, having
perused the records maintained at the office of the
Petitioner Firm.
2.That I have read and understood the contents of the
accompanying petition and affirm its contents to be true
to my best of my knowledge based upon the official
records maintained at the office of the Petitioner Firm.
3.That I affirm that there has been no false statement or
concealment of any material fact, document or record
and I have included information that, according to me, is
relevant for the petition.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Petitioner firm do hereby verify at New Delhi on the ______
day of ________, 2017 that the statements made above are
true to the best of my knowledge, except for information
as obtained from records, the legal submission believed
by me to be true.
DEPONENT
ALWAR, RAJASTHAN
NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT UNDER SECTION 65B OF THE INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
Petitioner Firm herein, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state as under:
1. That I am a Partner and authorised representative of the
Petitioner Firm, having its registered office at 204, Vikram
Towers, Rajinder Place, New Delhi – 110 008.
2. That the accompanying petition under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been preferred
by the Petitioner against the final Impugned Arbitral
Award passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, Mr. A.K. Raghava,

ADJ (Retd.) on March 18, 2017 in the matter of arbitration
between the parties herein.
3. That as Partner of the Petitioner Firm, I was directly
involved in all correspondence with the Respondent
Company. The e-mails annexed to the accompanying
petition were either sent by me on behalf of the Petitioner
Firm or received by me from the Respondent Company
and my name appears on the e-mail correspondence.
4. That being the Partner of the Petitioner Firm, I am
authorized to use its computer terminals. The terminals
used by me are functioning normally at all times. I have
used the computer terminal having _____ make _______
model to print the emails and softcopy of documents
annexed herein. The said computer is used to feed,
process, and store the information and to communicate
through internet and for other allied activities.
5. That I hereby produce the hard copies of the e-mails,
which are annexed hereto as Annexures “P/3, P/4
(Colly), P/6 (Colly), P/7, P/8 (Colly), P/9, P/10 (Colly)
and P/11 (Colly)”. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon
the clear copies of the same at the time of the hearing.
6. That I confirm that the contents of the hard copies of the
e-mails are identical to the e-mails exchanged through the
computer terminals operated by me.

7. That accordingly, I am making the present affidavit to
certify that the hard copies of the e-mails annexed as
Annexures “P/3, P/4 (Colly), P/6 (Colly), P/7, P/8
(Colly), P/9, P/10 (Colly) and P/11 (Colly)” hereto are
true copies of the electronic record which was regularly
fed into / transmitted through my computer terminal at
Petitioner Firm’s office in the ordinary course of activities. I
further state that at all times, the computer terminal
utilized by me was operating properly and there is no
distortion in the accuracy of the contents of the hard
copies of the e-mails. These annexures were derived /
produced from the said computer during which period that
computer was regularly used to store and process the
information for purpose of records. I further identify and
certify that the said electronic record/documents are
accessed through the said computer using my e-mail
(inbox) access and printed using a printer attached to the
said computer ordinarily used for the production of said
electronic records/documents.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm
and verify that what is stated in the foregoing affidavit is
true to the best of my information based on the records of

the case and the legal submission therein are believed to
be true in terms of the legal advice received.
Verified at on the day of , 2017.
DEPONENT
VAKALATNAMA
ALWAR, RAJASTHAN
NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
Know all men by these present that by this Vakalatnama I,

Manvinder Pal Singh Gill, the above named PETITIONER
in the aforesaid petition do hereby appoint and retain:
DEBESH PANDA / AMRITA PANDA / NEIL CHATTERJEE

ADVOCATES
F-6, Upasana Apartments, 1 Hailey Road, New Delhi – 110
001
Ph: +91 11 41648787, +91 9873547805
Advocate (s), to appear for me/us, in the above case and
conduct and prosecute (or defend) the same and all
proceedings that may be taken in respect of any
application connected with the same, or any decree or
order passed therein including all applications for return of
documents or receipt of any money that may be payable
to me/us in the said case and also in applications for
review, appeals that may arise; to admit any compromise
lawfully in the said case; to sign, file verify and present
pleadings, appeals cross-objections or petitions for
execution review, revision, withdrawal, compromise or
other petitions or affidavits or other documents as may be
deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution of the
said case in all its stages; to file and take back documents
to admit and/or deny the documents of the opposite
part(ies); to withdraw or compromise the said case or
submit to arbitration any differences or disputes that may
arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case;
to take execution proceedings; to deposit, draw and
receive money, cheques, cash and grant receipts hereof
and to do all other acts and things which may be
necessary to be done for the progress and in the course of
the prosecution of the said case; to appoint, and instruct
any other Legal Practitioner, authorising him to exercise
the power and authority hereby conferred upon them,
whenever they may think fit to do so and to sign the
Power of Attorney on our behalf. And I/we the undersigned
do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done by the
Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my/our acts, as
if done by me/us to all intents and purposes. And I/we
undertake that I/we or my/our duly authorised agent
would appear in the Court on all hearings and will inform
the Advocate for appearance when the case is called. And
I/we undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the
advocate or his substitute responsible for the result of the
said case. The adjournment costs whenever ordered by
the Court shall be of the Advocate which he shall receive
and retain himself. And I/we the undersigned do hereby
agree that in the event of the whole or part of the fee
agreed by me/us to be paid to the advocate remaining
unpaid; he shall be entitled to withdraw from the
prosecution of the said case until the same is paid up. The
fee settled is only for the above case and above Court.
I/we hereby agree that once the fee is paid. I/we will not
be entitled for the refund of the same in any case
whatsoever.
Dated the day of July, 2017

Signature of Executant(s)
Received from the executant(s) who is
satisfied as regards the terms above,
and accepted by us subject to terms of
fees, as we hold no brief for the other side.
(DEBESH PANDA) (AMRITA PANDA) (NEIL

CHATTERJEE)
(D-984/2008) (D-3502A/2010) (D-

1058/2016)

34 Petition FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

34 Petition FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

34 Petition FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF Ld.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

(DEBESH PANDA & AMRITA PANDA)

IN THE MATTER OF:

CORPORATE ALLIANCES …. PETITIONER

The accompanying petition is being filed on behalf of the

(DEBESH PANDA & AMRITA PANDA)

IN THE MATTER OF:

CORPORATE ALLIANCES …. PETITIONER

District and Sessions Court, Alwar, Rajasthan

Kindly treat the accompanying petition as urgent in

(DEBESH PANDA & AMRITA PANDA)

(DEBESH PANDA & AMRITA PANDA)

MINDSCAPE ONE MARKETING PVT LTD.

(DEBESH PANDA & AMRITA PANDA)

IN THE MATTER OF:

CORPORATE ALLIANCES …. PETITIONER

PETITION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION

AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AGAINST THE

ARBITRAL AWARD DATED MARCH 18, 2017 PASSED

BY THE LD. SOLE ARBITRATOR AT TIJARA, ALWAR,

RAJASTHAN IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION

BETWEEN MINDSCAPE ONE MARKETING PVT LTD VS.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That Petitioner is a Partnership Firm registered with the

Registrar of Firms, Delhi, having its registered office at

204, Vikram Towers, Rajinder Place, New Delhi – 110 008

and is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing

and packaging of bread and other bakery items. The

Partner and the Authorized Representative of the firm.

2. That Respondent is a company incorporated under the

provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its

registered office at L-37, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road,

Jaipur – 302 018, Rajasthan. It is engaged inter alia in the

business of distribution, sale and marketing of bread.

3. That the Impugned Arbitral Award was passed by the Ld.

Sole Arbitrator, Mr. A.K. Raghava, ADJ (Retd.) on March 18,

2017 at Tijara, Alwar in the matter of arbitration between

Mindscape One Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Corporate Alliances.

Copy of the Award was received by the Petitioner on

March 24, 2017. True Copy of the Arbitral Award dated

March 18, 2017 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator at Tijara,

Alwar, received on March 24, 2017 is enclosed herewith

and marked as Annexure – P/1.

4. That the Ld. Sole Arbitrator was pleased to grant the

following reliefs while passing the Impugned Arbitral

Award dated March 18, 2017, received by the Petitioner

on March 24, 2017 (hereinafter, “Impugned Award”):

A. Petitioner was directed to keep Respondent’s oven

with itself and the security deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five lacs only) given by Petitioner to

Respondent for the oven was to be set off against the

cost of the oven.

manufacturing bread/bakery items either for its own

or for any other business entity at the existing plaint

set up under the Agreement with the Respondent or

using the Plant for manufacturing and packaging of

breads/bakery items of a different entity, either

directly or indirectly through its directors/promoters